Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Impartiality

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    451
    Thanks (Given)
    408
    Thanks (Received)
    623
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default Impartiality

    Has anyone got a view on this one?

    A person takes an organisation to a specialist tribunal. They are not happy with the decision so they appeal to a higher court, at the appeal the tribunal's case is prepared by the agent who had represented the original authority in the first action.

    The person then raises a new, but related action against the original authority, they are again represented by the same agent. The action is raised to the same specialist tribunal but with a different three members sitting.

    Taking into account the possibility that the specialist tribunal could hold some loyalty for the agent, would this appear to a reasonable man to be free of any potential bias.

    If it could bring the possibility of a lack of impartiality, how could it be rectified?
    'I don't see why everyone depends on me. I'm not dependable. Even I don't
    depend on me, and I'm me.'

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    8,926
    Thanks (Given)
    13802
    Thanks (Received)
    10431
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default Re: Impartiality

    Sorry Magrew, you've lost me in the first two paragraphs. I know that's not hard, but I'd like to get my head round it.

    Any chance of explaining to a Labman with additional learning needs (note the Scottish phraseology for you!)

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    451
    Thanks (Given)
    408
    Thanks (Received)
    623
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default Re: Impartiality

    Thanks labman, that's the closest an Englishman can get to being bilingual (mind you thinking on it you are probably Welsh).

    I am not sure how I can make it clearer without making it more complicated. If you substitute "organisation" with "authority" does that help?
    'I don't see why everyone depends on me. I'm not dependable. Even I don't
    depend on me, and I'm me.'

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    8,926
    Thanks (Given)
    13802
    Thanks (Received)
    10431
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default Re: Impartiality

    Quote Originally Posted by Magrew View Post
    Has anyone got a view on this one?

    at the appeal the tribunal's case is prepared by the agent who had represented the original authority in the first action.
    Origianally English, now an illegal immigrant!

    The bit above confuses me. Surely the tribunal hears the case, it doesn't have a case of its own?

    Sorry, me being thick AGAIN!!!!!!!

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    451
    Thanks (Given)
    408
    Thanks (Received)
    623
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default Re: Impartiality

    Quote Originally Posted by labman View Post

    The bit above confuses me. Surely the tribunal hears the case, it doesn't have a case of its own?

    Right I now know what is confusing you.

    When the first decision was appealed the response to that appeal was prepared by the agent that represented the authority, thing is the appeal is against the decision of the tribunal. He therefore represented the tribunal at the higher court. Now he is back representing the authority again in a different action.

    So having been the tribunal's agent and the authorities agent would that not taint matters now creating a definite posssibility of loyalty bias in the new action?
    'I don't see why everyone depends on me. I'm not dependable. Even I don't
    depend on me, and I'm me.'

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    8,926
    Thanks (Given)
    13802
    Thanks (Received)
    10431
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default Re: Impartiality

    Right, now that makes sense. I'm off to bed, but will think on it. They have three different, supposedly impartial members sitting will be their argument as you will know. I'll see what I wake up thinking and will post again tomorrow,

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    3,988
    Thanks (Given)
    7957
    Thanks (Received)
    4529
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default Re: Impartiality

    FWIW, here's my take on this. In the first instance, it was the Tribunal's case which was prepared by the same agent that prepared the Authority's original case for the tribunal. That in itself seems like a negation of either the Tribunal's supposed impartiality - or that of the agent.

    To then find that the same agent is employed by the Authority in a separate action seems to me to be good cause for objection. But this is not a court of law, and we are not picking jurors. There seems to me to be a good reason to cite the fact that you are 'known' to the agent (by virtue of the previous action), and that this in itself should show that impartiality is compromised at the very least.

    As the Authority's agent, he has every right to act on behalf of the Authority. Once he has acted as the Tribunal's agent, he relinquishes that right IMO, as he must then assume the impartiality of the Tribunal.

    To THEN act as agent for the same Authority, in a separate case subsequently brought by the same plaintiff/appellant cannot be allowed IMO, as it either compromises the Tribunal's impartiality (via the agent) in the earlier appeal - or the agent's ability to act fairly for the Authority in the second case.

    "No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other." [Matthew 6:24]
    I dunno if any of that helps, but it's my 'umble submission.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    451
    Thanks (Given)
    408
    Thanks (Received)
    623
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default Re: Impartiality

    Sorry folks, I am being pulled in all directions at the moment so I am only getting to this on the odd occassion.

    Check the doc you download from this link at sections 3.2 and 3.3.

    http://www.interights.org/document/106/index.html

    Then take into account that this agent has prepared the specialist tribunal's response against our appeal to the Court of Session. I think there is an apparent conflict.

    A considered view from anyone would be appreciated.
    'I don't see why everyone depends on me. I'm not dependable. Even I don't
    depend on me, and I'm me.'

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Contact Us



© Celame (UK) Ltd 2014
Hosted by Lodge Information Services Ltd
LegalBEAGLES® are DPA Registered No. ZA025462
LegalBEAGLES® is the trading name of CELAME (UK) LIMITED ( 09220332 )
Registered Address: Hadfields Bottom Road, Buckland Common, Tring, Herts, HP23 6NH
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.1.3 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Celame LLP Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.1
Copyright © 2014 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
Extra Tabs by vBulletin Hispano
TOP